I've been thinking this over and I've changed my mind. I think we should
appeal.
First, but not directly related to the appeal, I think that in retrospect
asking for standards track (or even experimental) was a mistake. We should
have asked for Informational. This is for three reasons:
1. Informational is for work done outside the IETF.
2. Standards track/Experimental require change control to be given over to
the IETF. It's pretty clear to me that the SPF community isn't ready for
that. If, for example, the IETF were to declare Sender ID to be version 2
of SPF and our version 1 obsolete, I don't think we would accept that.
3. it would have helped clarify the distinction between the non-IETF MARID
input we were trying to document from the ill conceived proto experiment
that came out of the IETF process.
So, that said, having started down this road, I think we ought to finish it.
Although JFC's appeal that Frank mentioned was not technical, it clearly
took some effort to parse the admin RFCs to come to the conclusion they
did. So, I think Frank has a point about how long this will take.
Finally, I think it will be good for the IETF/IESG to have an IAB ruling on
are experiments allowed to break standards.
Scott K
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com